Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Global Justice Gets Off to Rocky Start

In November 2006, Marlise Simons of The New York Times estimated the stakes of the International Criminal Court’s first case rather straightforwardly:

If the case goes to trial, it will be the first occasion for the new global court to show if it can deliver justice at a reasonable speed, and at reasonable expense, in keeping with its founders’ aims.

As it turns out, that was a rather big “if.” Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a former warlord in the Congo who was charged with turning children into soldiers, may never see trial after all. Instead of standing before the court to begin his defense next Monday, Mr. Lubanga’s lawyers will be arguing for his release a day later.

“The prosecution’s approach,” judges said today, according to Reuters, “constitutes a wholesale and serious abuse.” In pre-trial proceedings, the prosecution kept too much evidence away from the defendant under a rule meant “solely for the purpose of generating new evidence,” the court added in a news release.

The trial has been long-awaited by both supporters of the court and its critics. Justices seemed to acknowledge the pressure today, saying it came to its decision with “great reluctance.”

This IS a serious matter. And while the prosecution of the accused is of serious interest obviously, so is the enforcement of the rights of the accused.

Professionalism is PARAMOUNT, otherwise, the temptation will be for nation-states, like the United States, to rely on military tribunals to dispense summary justice, without due process, whenever it deems fit.

Western countries should not be so concerned about the speed or the expense of these types of trials. Justice for the victims should be the focus and the trials should be conducted openly, fairly and with the highest professional legal standards.

As long as Western nations engage in covert wars and allow profits from the sale of armaments of war, we will be funding such trials. Perhaps we should be charging companies who engage in the sale of the armaments of war a surcharge to fund these trials. Their principals also should be charged with criminal complicity if they sell armaments used illegally against civilian populations.

Concurrently, we need to bring to justice leaders of nations who invade or covertly engage in war against sovereign nations. (We might begin with our own sitting US president, George Bush.)

Once we begin to bring criminal charges against the principals of the companies who sell armaments of war and the leaders of countries who engage in unprovoked wars, we will have true justice for the victims of war.

The ICC is a global suicide pact for nation states fighting asymmetric wars. By hamstringing nation states with rules of engagement preventing adequate defensive and offensive strategies it gives a free pass to terroists and revolutionary movements to do whatever is necessary to win.

The decision of the court and the sharply worded criticism casts serious doubts on the professionalism of the Argentinian prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo and his office. There is also information circulating of other abuse in the office of the prosecutor of the ICC, apparently directly at the top of the organisation. Is this really a necessary institution or would it be better to close it down as soon as possible?

I’m not a globalist, but understand the web of interdependence and its implications on many levels ~ economic, cultural, racial, etc. As to legal matters, it would be an exceptionally good idea to have an independent, well funded, well staffed and universally appreciated world court. If that court had the power to deal effectively with such issues as genocide, the slave trade, large-scale drug production and international distribution, endangered species and cold and brutal predation by governments on their own
people, the stabilization and desperately needed concerted action for a planet going down the toilet, this world would be a better place.

Why is this thug being set free? Incompetence? Lack of will? Lack of standing? Lack of detention powers notwithstanding procedural malfeasance? Take your pick.

Sad. Very sad. If this guy walks out of the I.C.C., he should be picked up by the C.I.A., helicoptered away and informally dumped into the North Sea. Should this be necessary? No.

What's Next

About

The Lede is a blog that remixes national and international news stories -- adding information gleaned from the Web or gathered through original reporting -- to supplement articles in The New York Times and draw readers in to the global conversation about the news taking place online.

Readers are encouraged to take part in the blogging by using the comments threads to suggest links to relevant material elsewhere on the Web or by submitting eyewitness accounts, photographs or video of news events. Read more.

Six young Iranians were arrested and forced to repent on state television Tuesday for the grievous offense of proclaiming themselves to be “Happy in Tehran,” in a homemade music video they posted on YouTube.Read more…